Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?

[jmcrae]

Why would you say that a peson’s personal interpretation could not be right if it disagrees with the church? Could not God work through one individual if He so chose to?

Can, and does - but never in secret. God isn’t going to reveal something to me, without first giving me credibility and authority in the eyes of the world, so as to be able to teach in His name without contradiction.

For example, when God chose Jeremiah to be His prophet, He first made the King of Israel anoint him into the office of Prophet, before giving him any prophecies to proclaim to the world. Jeremiah didn’t just suddenly start prophesying out of no where, with no credentials and no way to know whether he was from God, or not.

In fact there are actually are at least a couple of examples of this:
Joan of Arc and Galileo. Both had interpretations that were at odds with church teachings and later to be found correct.

I am not aware of St. Joan of Arc ever teaching any theology; she was an illiterate peasant girl. And Galileo’s theory that the Universe goes around the Sun in a perfect circle has been found to be false, actually. It turns out that Copernicus’ theory was the correct one - Copernicus, as you remember, was the one who was approved by the Church, and modern day science also agrees with Copernicus, as well.

I agree that there will some kind of “worldview” i.e. background that will influence our interpretation of scipture. For example the more you study something the greater understanding you will be and this understanding will impact your interpretation. Do you have catholic commentaries of the scriptures? If so, do you think there interpretations of the scriptures are always in line with catholic teachings?

Some of them skate dangerously close to the edge of heresy, for sure.

 

[mikew262]

What a shame…

Sorry, I don’t see it that way. Rejoice they are Christians and believe in God vs. lamenting everybody doesn’t see it the Catholic way.

 

[mikew262]

We have to interpret them according to Church teaching, since although a person could doubt that Church teachings come from God, he knows that his personal opinions don’t come from God.

And how do you know that? Maybe the Holy Spirit is guiding this person. Don’t presume or assume, you know where that can get you?

 

[Lampo]

Sorry, I don’t see it that way.

I know.

Rejoice they are Christians and believe in God vs. lamenting everybody doesn’t see it the Catholic way.

I am very glad they are Christians and believe in God.

 

[guanophore]

Why would you say that a peson’s personal interpretation could not be right if it disagrees with the church? Could not God work through one individual if He so chose to?

Because unity was Jesus’ foremost concern. Of course He works through individuals, but He always brings them into unity with His One Body. Look how He singled out Saul, and set him aside for the work he was to do! Yet he brought Paul into full unity with the Apostles that He had appointed to Shepherd the Church:

Acts 2:42
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."

Where Christ is, there is unity of doctrine.

In fact there are actually are at least a couple of examples of this:
Joan of Arc and Galileo. Both had interpretations that were at odds with church teachings and later to be found correct.

No, neither one of these individuals had any interpretations that were at odds with Church Teachings. Apparently you have been given to believe a false accounting of history. The Church does not proclaim anyone a saint who is opposed to the Apostolic Teaching! This is another example of bearing false witness against your neighbor, ja4. Using CAF to promote lies, disinformation, and calumny will result in sanctions, and getting banned.

What about things they never taught or things the catholic church has chosen to change?

You are limited in your understanding of Apostolic Teaching to what you can find in the NT, so you do not have access to a great portion of what was taught.

I agree that there will some kind of “worldview” i.e. background that will influence our interpretation of scipture. For example the more you study something the greater understanding you will be and this understanding will impact your interpretation. Do you have catholic commentaries of the scriptures? If so, do you think there interpretations of the scriptures are always in line with catholic teachings?

Are you trying to sow more seeds of division here, ja4? It has been made clear to you repeatedly that Catholic Teaching is not based on scholars or commentaries.

 

[jmcrae]

And how do you know that? Maybe the Holy Spirit is guiding this person. Don’t presume or assume, you know where that can get you?

The Holy Spirit speaks through the Catholic Church, and most especially through the Pope. If someone gets a “private message” that disagrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church, he can be absolutely certain that it did not come from the Holy Spirit.

 

[meandean]

The Holy Spirit speaks through the Catholic Church, and most especially through the Pope. If someone gets a “private message” that disagrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church, he can be absolutely certain that it did not come from the Holy Spirit.

which pope?the ones who sold the papacy to the highest bidder, or bought the papacy for their own pleasure?or how about calixtus 1,(218-223) who was the first to base his claim on mathew 16:18,his own private message.how about adrian 2,( 867-872), john 8 (872-882), marinus(882-)884,and so on.200 years of bribery,corruption,immorality and bloodshed. what about sergious 3(904-911)said to have a mistress, marozia, she and her mother theodora,and her sister,filled the papal chair with their paramours and bastard sons,and turned the papal office into a den of robbers.thus, the rule of the harlots(904-963).or john 10, who was made pope by theodora, for the more convenient gratification of her pleasure. but he was smothered by marozia,who made her own illegitimate son pope, leo 6 (928-929), stephen 7, and john 11.john 12 ,a grand son of marioza,was guilty of almost every crime,violated virgins and widows,high and low,lived with his fathers mistress, made the papal office a brothel,and was actually killed in the act of adultery by the womans enraged husband.how about boniface, who murdered pope john 14, or benedict 8, who bought the papacy, this is called simony, the purchase or sale of a church office. john 19, bought the papacy. john 12, commited murders and adultries in broad daylight,leo 3 unified church and state,gregory 7 divided it.the renaissance popes,nicolas 5, robbed the african people of their property, pius 2 many illigetimate kids,spoke openly about self indulgence.paul 2 filled his house with concubines,sixtus 4 decreed money would save you from purgatory, innocent 8 had 16 illigetimate kids by various married women,alexander 6the most corrupted renaissance pope, fathered illigetimate kids,guilty of licentious,avaricious,depraved,bought the papacy,made cardinals for money, murdered them as well,pius 9 declared of his own soverign authority proclaimed the immaculate conception of mary. this is only a few. to you i ask, which was filled with the holy spirit, and which one is true?

.martin 3

 

[jmcrae]

which pope?the ones who sold the papacy to the highest bidder, or bought the papacy for their own pleasure?or how about calixtus 1,(218-223) who was the first to base his claim on mathew 16:18,his own private message.how about adrian 2,( 867-872), john 8 (872-882), marinus(882-)884,and so on.200 years of bribery,corruption,immorality and bloodshed. what about sergious 3(904-911)said to have a mistress, marozia, she and her mother theodora,and her sister,filled the papal chair with their paramours and bastard sons,and turned the papal office into a den of robbers.thus, the rule of the harlots(904-963).or john 10, who was made pope by theodora, for the more convenient gratification of her pleasure. but he was smothered by marozia,who made her own illegitimate son pope, leo 6 (928-929), stephen 7, and john 11.john 12 ,a grand son of marioza,was guilty of almost every crime,violated virgins and widows,high and low,lived with his fathers mistress, made the papal office a brothel,and was actually killed in the act of adultery by the womans enraged husband.how about boniface, who murdered pope john 14, or benedict 8, who bought the papacy, this is called simony, the purchase or sale of a church office. john 19, bought the papacy. john 12, commited murders and adultries in broad daylight,leo 3 unified church and state,gregory 7 divided it.the renaissance popes,nicolas 5, robbed the african people of their property, pius 2 many illigetimate kids,spoke openly about self indulgence.paul 2 filled his house with concubines,sixtus 4 decreed money would save you from purgatory, innocent 8 had 16 illigetimate kids by various married women,alexander 6the most corrupted renaissance pope, fathered illigetimate kids,guilty of licentious,avaricious,depraved,bought the papacy,made cardinals for money, murdered them as well,pius 9 declared of his own soverign authority proclaimed the immaculate conception of mary. this is only a few. to you i ask, which was filled with the holy spirit, and which one is true?

.martin 3

This is so jumbled up that I can’t make sense of it. Try again - pick one subject to discuss, put your argument into coherent sentences, and break up your paragraphs to make them readable. Just fyi, “2” is a number; it cannot stand in for “to” or “too.”

Thanks!!

 

[NDfan]

This is so jumbled up that I can’t make sense of it. Try again - pick one subject to discuss, put your argument into coherent sentences, and break up your paragraphs to make them readable. Just fyi, “2” is a number; it cannot stand in for “to” or “too.”

Thanks!!

I think meandean’s point is given the intense corruption that crept into the church through some of the earlier popes, can you really claim the Holy Spirit was speaking through them? Given that at one time there were 3 popes, which one was the Holy Spirit speaking to?

 

[jmcrae]

I think meandean’s point is given the intense corruption that crept into the church through some of the earlier popes, can you really claim the Holy Spirit was speaking through them?

They never taught anything contrary to doctrine or morals, even at their worst behaviour. Infallibility does not mean that the Pope is without sin in his life; it means that he is without error in his teaching.

Given that at one time there were 3 popes, which one was the Holy Spirit speaking to?

We have several popes today, too, but we all know which one the Holy Spirit is speaking to - Pope Benedict XVI. The others are “anti-Popes,” and while they do have a bit of a following on the fringe, Catholics in the pews know which one to listen to.

They did back then, too.

 

[NDfan]

They never taught anything contrary to doctrine or morals, even at their worst behaviour. Infallibility does not mean that the Pope is without sin in his life; it means that he is without error in his teaching.

Yes that is the canned answer. That their behavior does not undermine the message. I guess it could go to credibility. If a Protestant minister preaches a good message but then is caught let’s say embezzling money. Do you call into question his message?

We have several popes today, too, but we all know which one the Holy Spirit is speaking to - Pope Benedict XVI. The others are “anti-Popes,” and while they do have a bit of a following on the fringe, Catholics in the pews know which one to listen to.

They did back then, too.

No that’s not true. There were 3 Roman Catholic popes at one time. One was pope. Then sold it to another. He wasn’t liked so another was named by a separate group. The church was split as to who they were listening to.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes that is the canned answer. That their behavior does not undermine the message. I guess it could go to credibility. If a Protestant minister preaches a good message but then is caught let’s say embezzling money. Do you call into question his message?

I notice that Jerry Falwell seems to be doing okay, these days.

No that’s not true. There were 3 Roman Catholic popes at one time. One was pope. Then sold it to another. He wasn’t liked so another was named by a separate group. The church was split as to who they were listening to.

Obviously it all got sorted out in the end, or else we wouldn’t still be here.

 

[NDfan]

I notice that Jerry Falwell seems to be doing okay, these days.

The question is does corruption undermine the message? Not whether or not Jerry Falwell is doing well.

Obviously it all got sorted out in the end, or else we wouldn’t still be here.

Just because we’re here doesn’t mean the message is perfect. Suppose corruption impacted the message which goes back to the original question? I think that’s what meandean’s point is. Not saying I agree with him.

But I believe that was his point in that very jumbled message. Simony was a huge problem in the middle ages. So it would beg the question that if someone became pope who was not qualified, could he have communicated a corrupt message? It’s the same as someone who glances through the Bible and then professes to be able to teach. Their message probably would be corrupt.

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

The question is does corruption undermine the message? Not whether or not Jerry Falwell is doing well.

First of all, the message is the message. If someone messes it up, it doesn’t change the original message.

Second, no Pope has ever preached contrary to the Church’s teachings. Ever. (Find me the writings of any Pope who made an ex cathedra pronouncement (I declare and define, etc.) that contradicts any de fide teaching of the Church.)

I bring up Jerry Falwell because he has sinned publicly in the past. Yet, his sin does not seem to have permanently damaged the Gospel message, nor even his own career.

But I believe that was his point in that very jumbled message. Simony was a huge problem in the middle ages. So it would beg the question that if someone became pope who was not qualified, could he have communicated a corrupt message?

Sure they could have. Interestingly, though, they didn’t.

 

[Mary61]

First of all, the message is the message. If someone messes it up, it doesn’t change the original message.

Second, no Pope has ever preached contrary to the Church’s teachings. Ever. (Find me the writings of any Pope who made an ex cathedra pronouncement (I declare and define, etc.) that contradicts any de fide teaching of the Church.)

I bring up Jerry Falwell because he has sinned publicly in the past. Yet, his sin does not seem to have permanently damaged the Gospel message, nor even his own career.

Sure they could have. Interestingly, though, they didn’t.

 

[Mary61]

Mary61:
And so we come back to the fact that since Jesus astablished his Church and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, the Church still stands in all its glory by the words of our Lord.

 

[mikew262]

If someone gets a “private message” that disagrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church, he can be absolutely certain that it did not come from the Holy Spirit.

No, you can’t be certain about that at all. The Holy Spirit can whisper to anybody, Catholic or not, Church or not, and we certainly can’t hold judgment on what the Holy Spirit is saying to somebody.

 

[jmcrae]

No, you can’t be certain about that at all. The Holy Spirit can whisper to anybody, Catholic or not, Church or not, and we certainly can’t hold judgment on what the Holy Spirit is saying to somebody.

If the content of the message that the “invisible messenger” is giving to the person is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, then you can be certain that the “invisible messenger” is something or someone other than the Holy Spirit.

The person to whom the message is being given could, of course, be of any religion, or none at all - that’s how conversions happen.

Looking back I can see how my original statement might have been confusing - I was referring to the content of the message being in accord with Church teaching - not the person having to be a Catholic.

 

[justasking4]

If the content of the message that the “invisible messenger” is giving to the person is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, then you can be certain that the “invisible messenger” is something or someone other than the Holy Spirit.

The person to whom the message is being given could, of course, be of any religion, or none at all - that’s how conversions happen.

What if the message was never heard of before by the church?

 

[jmcrae]

What if the message was never heard of before by the church?

All new revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle, in 95 AD.